Here's how - assume these smaller figures to make the point:
election results:
JFKerry - 99 votes
GWBush - 101 votes - Bush wins by 2 votes.
3 Republicans decide they don't like Bush, so they vote for the Libertarian candidate instead.
Now:
JFKerry - 99 votes
GW Bush - 98 votes
Libertarian candidate - 3 votes - JFKerry wins by 1 vote.
Those 3 dissatisfied Republicans just gave the election to Kerry.
Multiply those 3 by enough voters and it could change the outcome of an election.
While the dissatisfied Republicans didn't "add" to the Kerry total, they "subtracted from the Bush total - giving the same result as if you "added" to Kerry's total.
My logic is not flawed - you're arguing semantics - subtracted or added, the result is the same, a changed election.
My point exactly, candidate kerry has exactly the same number of votes regardless.
Your logical flaw lies in the assumption that the "3 votes" that were cast for the libertarian candidate were actually taken away from bush. In other words you are suggesting that bush, or whatever candidate you are talking about, actually has a pool of votes that are committed based on party.
It's a common misconception, I have heard the same arguments from democrats stating that a vote for nader was the same as a vote for bush, yada yada, yada.
The argument is made often that perot cost bush1 and dole their respective elections. This is incorrect. Both candidates lost because the majority of votes in the race went to another candidate. In reality both were very poor candidates.
The concept is quite simple.
Each vote must be earned, not taken for granted.